Do's and Don'ts of site design? [Archive]

SyrenSong

11-24-2003, 04:57 PM

Just check at the top of the Site Review forum for Design tips for new web designers (http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=5318) to get started.

From there, continue to the Design Peeves and Solutions (http://www.webproworld.com/viewforum.php?f=9) forum. ;)

Lots of folks have lots of opinions on these topics.

Interested in making your site accessible and/or usable for the greatest majority? Take a look at Asseccibility & Usability (http://www.webproworld.com/viewforum.php?f=12) for some really good suggestions and how to implement them.

Okay. Maybe I'm oversimplifying things a bit, but there really are an awful of things to take into consideration to answer such a broad question as yours, labrynth_of_fire.

There are many things that need to be taken into consideration when designing a website.

Some of them are simple, like not using extremely large fonts (visitors will think your yelling at 'em all the time); or clashing colors (red text on a blue background is hard to read); or even monitor resolution (most folks currently use a resolution of 800x600, but some designers design sites for much larger screens).

There's also a big question regarding the purpose of the site and who it's visitors will be. You simply don't design a website the same way for older visitors as you would for younger visitors -- especially young children.

The purpose of the site has a great deal of impact on what's appropriate and what's inappropriate.

matauri

11-24-2003, 05:24 PM

For tips on planning your site & what to avoid...
Site Design For New Business Owners (http://webpronewsau.com/webpronewsau-34-20031121SiteDesignForNewBusinessOwners.html)

Cindy

carju1

11-24-2003, 06:43 PM

WTG Cindy,

They published you (I didn't know WPN had its own Aus version). Nice article full of the common sense most designers tend to throw out when they start a site. I'll have an indepth study of it tomorrow as I'm sure they'll be a least one point we can discuss further :)

Julian

matauri

11-24-2003, 07:00 PM

Why thank you Julian ! Nicest thing you've said to me all day ! ;-)
(Professor indeed ! )

:-)

Cindy

mikmik

11-25-2003, 01:31 AM

That's pretty good, mat!

Keep 'em coming, we hope!

Design tips for neewbies? (Besides check spelling..)
Just start doing things, take it one at a time. I would see a dropdown menu, for instance, then find out how to make one. I then became more aware of how other sites had them, different styles and the like. I was then tuned into feedback about them on site reviews, and after a week, I had a pretty good idea what they're apprpriate for, placement, and all that.
I found that focussing on single area's at a time stopped me from getting to overwhelmed, but before long, I knew some good stuff!
There is just to much to learn, everyone is always learning, so keep it fun.
I started with formatting text and background colors, then images, layout (tables0, linking, etc . You have a good attitude, it will happen!
I'm not saying my way is right for anybody but me, it is just how I did it - learn something, then learn it right!
Keep asking questions, my man!! And post answers when you can, too!

Always include a bgcolor (o;

minstrel

11-25-2003, 02:31 AM

Nice going, Cin...

Now I can say I know a famous Aussie author who danced with Elton John before he realized he was gay!

:-)

minstrel

11-25-2003, 02:37 AM

Now back to the original question about do's and don't's, it's always worth remembering Jim Rome (http://www.jimrome.com/home.html)'s advice:

Have a take... don't suck.

carju1

11-25-2003, 07:59 AM

Darn it Cindy, I've re-read your WPN-AUSarticle (http://webpronewsau.com/webpronewsau-34-20031121SiteDesignForNewBusinessOwners.html)and there is nothing I can really get my teeth into to disagree with :( - Take that as a compliment on a well thought out article.

Best I can manage is a few nit picks and additional comments on visual appearence.

1. Quote - "Use text colors that complement your background color or image" - Addition: however unless there is good reason like a corporate colour scheme, black text on a white background is still the best option as its the esiest to read.
5. Quote - "If you must use music on your page..." - Addition: Unless you have written/performed the music remember you may well need a lisense and should pay royalties to have music on a commercial site.
8. Addition - Never lie on a web site. Trading standards can take you to court if you claim to be a member of XYZ guild when you aren't and remember the laws of liable/slander apply just as much to your private website as they do to the New York Times.

Julian

matauri

11-25-2003, 10:54 AM

Darn it Cindy, I've re-read your WPN-AUS article and there is nothing I can really get my teeth into to disagree with :( - Take that as a compliment on a well thought out article.

Twice in one day....woohooo !! Careful Julian, I might just begin to think your getting soft ;-)

Good additions there, wish I had thought of those too! Ammended for for future use!

Addition: however unless there is good reason like a corporate colour scheme, black text on a white background is still the best option as its the esiest to read.

One of my least favourite color schemes tho I must admit. Probably because I am staring at the screen for so many hours a day. Thats why I usually go for a more nuetral nackground if using black text, the white kills my eyes.

Actually, here is a tip for the ladies that my optometrist gave me for when getting eye strain from computers... 'dont wear eyeliner on your bottom eye lid'. Apparently white screen glare reflects off the bottom eye lid when women wear eyeliner there. (well, I suppose you could include others apart from just women!) :-)

Cindy

minstrel

11-25-2003, 11:02 AM

Actually, here is a tip for the ladies that my optometrist gave me for when getting eye strain from computers... 'dont wear eyeliner on your bottom eye lid'. Apparently white screen glare reflects off the bottom eye lid when women wear eyeliner there. (well, I suppose you could include others apart from just women!)
Poor Elton... those piano keys must be blinding some days...

Webmaster-DSP

11-25-2003, 02:36 PM

My computer default background color is set to an odd tan, it goes with my ancient Greek motif. Thus, when visiting sites I notice if no one has thought to set the background color of the pages. I see graphics designed for assumed white pages with white boxes for graphically rendered text and logos but "When you assume you make an ass out of you and me."
(remember that old saying?) Especially with some of the new css tricks designers are using to specify color for areas of content, they are forgetting to set a default page background.

If you are one of the offenders you're in good company. I have noticed this on eBay's backend and many sites who will design and create your web site for you!

The fix is simple, have one computer or alternate user login default settings set to an unusual color and review the output of the web-design team.

Good-luck.

labrynth_of_fire

11-25-2003, 02:44 PM

Thank you for all of your tips!! I read those sites, and then sat back looked at mine, looked at what it needed and fixed most of everything except for one little problem with having white links on a white background -_- . (P.S. how does my site look now? www.zultone.com )

Webmaster-DSP

11-25-2003, 03:11 PM

wenwilder

11-25-2003, 04:25 PM

Best I can manage is a few nit picks and additional comments on visual appearence.

1. Quote - "Use text colors that complement your background color or image" - Addition: however unless there is good reason like a corporate colour scheme, black text on a white background is still the best option as its the esiest to read.

Julian

Black text on a white background works great, but if you want to be remembered use a dark blue - as close to black as you can get.

Blue text, as long as it's not bright blue, 'activates' memory. Your site and its contents will be remembered long after they've clicked a way and may just make them return, or atleast wish they'd bookmarked your site.

Narasinha

11-25-2003, 04:30 PM

Take a look at my page. The shopping cart page is finally coming together.
...
Oh, anyway http://www.thedarksideofpoppy.com

I had a tough time trying to actually look at your site. The first time I started to bring it up in a background tab. All of a sudden, my system slowed to a crawl. I could barely get my mouse to move. I ended up having to do a hard reset. When I restarted my browser the page began to load again, and once again my system started to slow.

I quickly closed that tab and opened a different browser. I finally got to see the site in Internet Explorer. I do have some suggestions. Keep in mind that these are my personal opinions. Not everyone sees things the same way.

1. Changing the cursor that I use on my computer is not a friendly thing to do. I usually see this on personal web pages, not commercial sites. I consider it "bad manners" to attempt to change my computer's settings. An animated cursor such as this also uses system resources that I'd rather not give away.

2. The two Shockwave Flash sections on the page could very easily have been done with animated GIF files. Again, Flash is a large resource hog.

3. The links at the bottom of the page are a bit confusing. They aren't all aligned the same and when they are close it's tough to see where one stops and the next starts.

Best Regards,
Narasinha

labrynth_of_fire

11-25-2003, 05:07 PM

I did a "select all" on your zultzone page and found your invisible white text, kind of like a scavenger hunt if you know you're looking for it. Take a look at my page. The shopping cart page is finally coming together. No one ever told me, and no book that I have (and I have many) ever said that you shouldn't just upload everything in binary mode! It messes up php scripts but in a stealth sort of way so they look fine but they don't work.
Oh, anyway http://www.thedarksideofpoppy.com
sweet site!!!!! anyways, that white text, that stuff is links that i need ti fix, i thought they disappeared until i waved my mouse over them, ill have to add more to the stylesheet and update a little html...

Webmaster-DSP

11-25-2003, 05:39 PM

labrynth_of_fire

11-25-2003, 08:24 PM

Narasinha

11-25-2003, 09:06 PM

Narasinha dude!
How old is your computer? My site isn't for everyone I guess. Most of the people who go there have gaming systems. However I have an old IBM test computer that only has a 100 processor and 64 megs of ram and it's slow on everything but doesn't crash on my site, even if I dump the temporary internet files and it needs to reload everything. I defrag a lot, maybe that's the secret.

AMD K6-2 550/256MB RAM/Win98SE. I think the problem at the time was viewing in Opera browser. Opera uses the Netscape plugin for Flash instead of the IE plugin. I had about ten different browser tabs open at the time. My video sub-system sucks, which would account for Flash getting bogged down. Also, I was re-encoding an AVI into MPEG-2 for a SVCD in the background. Still, the site is much more resource-intensive than it should be. Some of that is Flash, some the animated cursor. The other dozen sites I had open were no problem.

mikmik

11-26-2003, 02:52 AM

WEN =
Black text on a white background works great, but if you want to be remembered use a dark blue - as close to black as you can get.
Alright! I've always done that just for the minor chance that it looked slightly better and was 'different', but not to much. More memorable is na added bonus.
Question - I've also used dark maroon ie "#330000", and was wonerring if it has 'side effects'?

matauri wrote

6. Beware of copyrights! Content on the Internet is the same as any published intellectual work -- it is afforded copyright protection unless it's explicitly declared as public domain. There are hefty fines associated with breaching copyright, so before you go adding graphics, text content, music, etc., from another web site, be sure you obtain permission to use it.
I don't see what julian is talking about(re: music violation)? lol (o:

matauri

11-26-2003, 03:01 AM

6. Beware of copyrights! Content on the Internet is the same as any published intellectual work -- it is afforded copyright protection unless it's explicitly declared as public domain. There are hefty fines associated with breaching copyright, so before you go adding graphics, text content, music, etc., from another web site, be sure you obtain permission to use it.

5. Quote - "If you must use music on your page..." - Addition: Unless you have written/performed the music remember you may well need a lisense and should pay royalties to have music on a commercial site.

I don't see what julian is talking about(re: music violation)? lol (o:

I'll beat Julian to it.......
I think he is talking not so much about copyright poaching from other websites, but also paying royalties for the use of it. A pretty fine line admittedly, but we love Julian for his fine lines ;-)

Cindy

kneelsit

11-26-2003, 04:54 AM

carju1

11-26-2003, 06:14 AM

I don't see what julian is talking about(re: music violation)? lol (o:

I'll beat Julian to it.......
I think he is talking not so much about copyright poaching from other websites, but also paying royalties for the use of it. A pretty fine line admittedly, but we love Julian for his fine lines ;-)

Nah nah n nah nah - See Mik, Cindy understood. (Oh boy Mik are you in trouble now, wriiten proof that a blonde understood my fine line and you didn't ;) yep lots of fine lines to love (mainly around the eyes)

The reason I added that one was I recently (OK sometime this year) read of a (I think German) group trying to sue a big European company for using its music on its web site and wanted x cents per site hit. It wasn't some random thing the company used (legittimatly I assume) the same music for tv adverts and were following up the tv campaign on the web.

It is also applicable to video. I was this spring involved in a situation where the client had paid thousands for the rights to shoot some (lets say sports) footage for promotional purposes. They were using it at shows and distributing highlights of it on video for promotion. I had added it to the intranet for them, which was OK, but we found out that it couldn't go onto the internet site (unless thay paid thousands more) as that would count as public performance.

Julian

simonm

11-26-2003, 06:14 AM

People scan content top left to bottom right for an initial view.

Advertising banners appear at the top of web pages - are web users learning to (subliminaly ) not see the top of web pages?

Search engines show results as a list left aligned with relevancy from the top and reducing. Are web users being conditioned into a certain behaviour?

Google adwords being boxes right side of screen with potentially useful content might again be conditioning users - perhaps to look on that area of the screen, perhaps not?

I'm increasingly considering the above when both commissioning and doing my own design or modification. My site stats seem to indicate that is valid.

carju1

11-26-2003, 06:25 AM

Simonm

Your correct on the ignoring the top of a page. I have noticed lately that when a page is loading I automatically move my mouse over to the bottom of the right hand scroll bar ready to click and bring the page down to 'lose' the banner. On some sites I use frequenty (Yahoo and *gulp" don't tell Brittany even WPW) I now automatically click for a scroll down the moment the page has part loaded and have my 'click' point and time down to perfection to remove only the top banner.

Julian

simonm

11-26-2003, 06:30 AM

Julian

While reading your post, oh dear, there were my hands doing just what you were describing.

Scary or what!

Simon

matauri

11-26-2003, 06:52 AM

On some sites I use frequenty (Yahoo and *gulp" don't tell Brittany even WPW) I now automatically click for a scroll down the moment the page has part loaded and have my 'click' point and time down to perfection to remove only the top banner.

I vote for Julian to tell Brittany ;-)

Yes..I do the same. If I really want to use the site as soon as I see a top banner I scroll. But I am prob more fussy that most when I surf, I will skip over a site that is advertizing rich for one that is content rich. This is especially so when they are animated banners, I just cant stand them.

I blame marketers who have force fed desciples that they have to carry such advertizing to get hits. I wish they would at least also teach people how to place them tastefully.

Cindy

carju1

11-26-2003, 07:07 AM

I vote for Julian to tell Brittany ;-)

Makes note not be nice to Cindy anymore and extra note that if B finds out to make a new list in Mod forum called 'members to pick on' and to add Matauri as the no.1 candidate :0

------

Google adwords being boxes right side of screen with potentially useful content might again be conditioning users - perhaps to look on that area of the screen, perhaps not?

Simonm - I just skimmed a few sites and I always looked left - right expecting navigation on the left but no preconcieved idea for the right. Looks like the google boxes haven't been there long enough for my brain functions to automate.

Cindy - to save you a post re above "I'm only a man so you can't expect my brain functions to catch on that quickly - not enough blood to go around"

Julian

matauri

11-26-2003, 08:16 AM

Cindy - to save you a post re above "I'm only a man so you can't expect my brain functions to catch on that quickly - not enough blood to go around"

Julian... and here I thought it was because, I thought you would be one brave enough ;-)

Makes note not be nice to Cindy anymore and extra note that if B finds out to make a new list in Mod forum called 'members to pick on' and to add Matauri as the no.1 candidate :0

Makes note that offenders have been operating off the list ;-)

Simonm - I just skimmed a few sites and I always looked left - right expecting navigation on the left but no preconcieved idea for the right. Looks like the google boxes haven't been there long enough for my brain functions to automate.

When planning newspapaper advertizing the top right hand corner is prime real estate, because that has first focus. I find that even on the net I will focus right first.

Cindy

Cindy

Webmaster-DSP

11-26-2003, 03:22 PM

My site is mostly for special effects and they take a little more sometimes but this page actully runs faster on the podunk test computer than on my super xp system.
http://www.thedarksideofpoppy.com/java1/entity.htm

I may change my splash page to something java because it's very system friendly.

andyholt

11-26-2003, 06:48 PM

Quote:- "most folks currently use a resolution of 800x600"

Sorry Syren-song but you are using out of date stats here. Most folks are using 1024 x 840 these days. I discovered this by putting up a free tracker just a few months back from 'extreme-dm' on one of my pages as an experiment. My old tracker used to show 800 x 600 but that was over a two year period.

Just thought I should mention this as there is so much rrapid change on the net.

Just to add to this point. 1024x768 is around 42% and 800x600 44%
source http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/October/res.php
I use other sources as well but this is my fav :)

Now assuming that the figures were reversed and the greater share was 1024x768, you would still be alienating a very high percentage of visitors if your site was designed (fixed width)for a res of 1024x768

From studies I have done, higher resolutions reduce the need for maximised browsers. Now, some people just surf maximised all the time regardless of resolution but for others - perhaps doing research or development etc are more likely to have several applications open, cutting and pasting / drag and dropping etc.

Don't assume that just because you are getting reports that 1024x768 res is used that the browser is maximised.

Feel free to aggree/disagree :)

Andy

minstrel

11-26-2003, 09:19 PM

1024x768 is around 42% and 800x600 44% source... Now assuming that the figures were reversed and the greater share was 1024x768, you would still be alienating a very high percentage of visitors if your site was designed (fixed width)for a res of 1024x768. Don't assume that just because you are getting reports that 1024x768 res is used that the browser is maximised.
Good point, Andy.

Another point is that a page designed for 800x600 is easily viewable on a 1024x768 monitor but the reverse isn't true - without forcing the veiwer to scroll sideways, which is at best annoying. Even if, for the sake of argument, only 40% of people are at 800x600, do you want to annoy them? or do you want to make sure that their visit to your site is easy on their eyes?

To me it's a choice between possibly annoying about half your visitors by designing too large, or making it easy for 90-95% by designing for the smaller display.

Of course, either way I guess you might annoy anyone still at 640x480 or whatever-it-was but I don't see anyone arguing that there are many of those left, which leads me to invoke the law of diminishing returns...

labrynth_of_fire

11-26-2003, 09:33 PM

wow, thank you everyone for your tips, ive gotten everything looking really nice, fixed almost everything except for that table with the red and blue ill do that with css easily, put a new background and added some alt tags and images ,and how would i make my site viewable to people with different size screen resolutions? or is it fine
www.zultone.com

matauri

11-26-2003, 10:03 PM

The one thing I keep reading is that users are still using 800x600. There are businesses & users out there that still aren't using computers, and I will bet you there is a dam site lot more of them than there are 800x600 users. Think of ALL those people that are being invoncenienced by your business only being online, and the amount of business you lose there. 800x600 users are only being inconvenienced slightly if a page isn't designed for them. There are just as many slow loading sites out there that will lose business. I don't believe that all users on a 800x600 will click STOP. They might grumble & abuse you, but I think your all going overboard a bit by saying that their hit will be LOST.

We have already established that an experienced designer will adapt to everything if possible. We have also discussed on other threads how the additional time factor in accomodating everyone is a cost that the small designer business wears. This subject has been sooooo done to death, and every single person has a different outlook on it, and of course, different stats to back up their theory.

What I would like to know, is, hands up who think that 800x600 will have as great a share of the market as it does today in 1-2yrs time?

Who also thinks that having a site redesigned every couple of years is a justifiable expense? (even for the self made sites...time is money).

Who also thinks that if you combine every resolution over 800x600, that you aren't looking at a trend for higher resolution in the future?

Who also thinks that geeks make up the greater population of computer users? As was said before, one of the main reason there are so many 800x600 stats is because 'open the box' users know NO different. They couldn't even tell you what resolution was! I know, because I have set literally 100's of these kind of people up. You give them a 1024x768 resolution and their first response is "wow, that is SO much better". But, now new machines are coming out preconfiged to the larger res.

There are so many who, what & whyfors regarding this subject, like all the other cross design subjects. Think OUTSIDE the box guys. There are billions of people out there that dont even know what a forum is, so how can they see your arguements. They most buy from the box, and if new configs have the resolution set higher, then that is what the trend will be. I am pretty certain that any 'box buy' after ME & 2000 is preset at 1024x768.

Cindy

minstrel

11-26-2003, 10:17 PM

800x600 users are only being inconvenienced slightly if a page isn't designed for them. There are just as many slow loading sites out there that will lose business. I don't believe that all users on a 800x600 will click STOP. They might grumble & abuse you, but I think your all going overboard a bit by saying that their hit will be LOST.
I agree about slow-loading sites but I think you're wrong about 800x600 visitors just grumbling and staying - it may depend on what they're looking for but I like 800x600 on my monitor and if I hit a site that requires me to scroll sideways I don't stay very long... I certainly don't browse the site unless it's the only one delivering the info I need at that moment - to me, it's the same as a flash site or a graphics-heavy site - it's "click back" and I'm on to the next on the Google list.

We have also discussed on other threads how the additional time factor in accomodating everyone is a cost that the small designer business wears. This subject has been sooooo done to death, and every single person has a different outlook on it, and of course, different stats to back up their theory.
But this isn't the same kind of issue, is it? Are you saying that a page that is viewable at 800x600 is somehow ugly or un-viewable at 1064x7568?

Who also thinks that geeks make up the greater population of computer users? As was said before, one of the main reason there are so many 800x600 stats is because 'open the box' users know NO different. They couldn't even tell you what resolution was! I know, because I have set literally 100's of these kind of people up. You give them a 1024x768 resolution and their first response is "wow, that is SO much better".
I don't know, but I can tell you that what I'd say is, "please put it back the way it was..."

But, now new machines are coming out preconfigureded to the larger res.
...depending on monitor size, among other things...

There are billions of people out there that dont even know what a forum is, so how can they see your arguments.
The arguments aren't aimed at them - they're aimed at people creating web pages for them.

I am pretty certain that any 'box buy' after ME & 2000 is preset at 1024x768.
Not in these parts - my father bought a new XP system a few months back and it came, out of the box, with an 800x600 configured 17 or 19" monitor. Walk into Future Shop or Best Buy, where most of the people you're talking about will go to buy their computers, and you'll see many just the same.

matauri

11-26-2003, 11:08 PM

But this isn't the same kind of issue, is it? Are you saying that a page that is viewable at 800x600 is somehow ugly or un-viewable at 1064x7568?

Yup..it probably would look pretty ugly on a 1064x7568 ;-)
But seriously, its not a matter of looking ugly, its more a matter of either having eye strain reading it or constantly changing the font size to 'largest'. I know a lot of usrs that actually wound 'back' to 1064x768 for readability, so you will prob find that the stats for that range are slightly variable because of that fact. If we have to wind back for readability, why cant 800x600 wind forward? Because you adapt to what the majority of the net caters for.

I don't know, but I can tell you that what I'd say is, "please put it back the way it was..."
Not one has ever said that! Give a man a 2ha (1acre) of land & he will wonder how he ever lived on 1ha (1/2 acre).

The arguments aren't aimed at them - they're aimed at people creating web pages for them.
Check out even the small population of users that post for site reviews, they are designing their own. Many are looking at us for advice or to do the work for them, and we are meant to tell them design for 1995 or 2005?

Not in these parts - my father bought a new XP system a few months back and it came, out of the box, with an 800x600 configured 17 or 19" monitor. Walk into Future Shop or Best Buy, where most of the people you're talking about will go to buy their computers, and you'll see many just the same.
Not here. Out of the box is configged to 1024x768 for the most part now. Must be that 30% rise in IT here compared to the downfall in Canada & US ;-) (j/k!)

All I am saying is that you cant advise that there is one absolute preference, because I am pretty sure you will see the trend swing a lot in favour of higher res. in yrs to come.

We have already established that an experienced designer will adapt to everything if possible.

Can I just point out also, by the time that today's fledgling designers are ready to leave the nest & be called 'professionals', nearly everything said here will be archaic anyway. I just don't think newbies to the field need to waste time bashing their head against a brick wall over a glitch like 'some like to use 800x600'. I think that instead of argueing resolutions & what ones they 'should' be designing to, that we 'as professionals' should be telling them of 'techniques' to make it so they are catering to most cross-whatevers. I spent months on this issue trying to make site look good in diff. resolutions. But once I started learning techniques for making pages adaptable to a lot of variables (browsers, resoltions, accessibility, etc), that all of a sudden they were OK in smaller res. I'd wasted months on a minor issue when I could have been looking at the wider picture the whole time, and still achieved the same end.

Cindy

Webmaster-DSP

11-26-2003, 11:30 PM

This is also an issue of who your viewers are. I also have a site that isn't selling anything but gets a lot of traffic. The people who view are older and they have the 600 x 800 almost 3 to 1. I get those stats. Then my daughter who is only 32 and is an I.T. professional, keeps hers at the 6 x 8 because she says she doesn't want to put her glasses on to read pages. The distance vision thing. Text and images are too small for many people at the higher res.
If you can design your site with content that doesn't fly apart if you set the table width at 100% and up your text size a bit you can please everyone but what is your time worth and who are your viewers?

minstrel

11-26-2003, 11:42 PM

its more a matter of either having eye strain reading it or constantly changing the font size to 'largest'.
actually, I set it to "smaller"

If we have to wind back for readability, why cant 800x600 wind forward?
But my point is, speaking from personal preference rather than arguing about who should design for what, I use 800x600 precisely because I find the "readability" better at that resolution...

I don't know, but I can tell you that what I'd say is, "please put it back the way it was..."
Not one has ever said that! Give a man a 2ha (1acre) of land & he will wonder how he ever lived on 1ha (1/2 acre).
I won't debate that - I have 2.6 acres here... if I didn't, all the music in this house would drive the neighbours nuts. But that isn't the same as monitor real estate...

Not in these parts - my father bought a new XP system a few months back and it came, out of the box, with an 800x600 configured 17 or 19" monitor. Walk into Future Shop or Best Buy, where most of the people you're talking about will go to buy their computers, and you'll see many just the same.
Not here. Out of the box is configged to 1024x768 for the most part now. Must be that 30% rise in IT here compared to the downfall in Canada & US ;-) (j/k!)
damn impertinent blonde aussies... ;-)

Always fun to debate with you, Cindy... especially when you're wrong... :-)

(ducking out of the way of that left hook as Matauri makes mental)

minstrel

11-26-2003, 11:47 PM

This is also an issue of who your viewers are. I also have a site that isn't selling anything but gets a lot of traffic. The people who view are older and they have the 600 x 800 almost 3 to 1. I get those stats. Then my daughter who is only 32 and is an I.T. professional, keeps hers at the 6 x 8 because she says she doesn't want to put her glasses on to read pages. The distance vision thing. Text and images are too small for many people at the higher res.
Exactly! I just finished saying that... only not nearly as coherently :-)

matauri

11-27-2003, 12:21 AM

actually, I set it to "smaller"
Why are we making the changes at all? Because the person who designed the site designed it to 'a' resolution. :-)

But my point is, speaking from personal preference rather than arguing about who should design for what, I use 800x600 precisely because I find the "readability" better at that resolution...
You would find the same readibility on all if sites used what I call 'collapsable' font sizes.

I won't debate that - I have 2.6 acres here... if I didn't, all the music in this house would drive the neighbours nuts. But that isn't the same as monitor real estate...
Yar it is! I buy larger because I want more room, and want to be able to do more things.

damn impertinent blonde aussies... ;-)
Always fun to debate with you, Cindy... especially when you're wrong... :-)
(ducking out of the way of that left hook as Matauri makes mental)

Grouchy Flu ridden male... ;-)
<<Looks to her right>>> Your not there :-)
<<makes mental...If Dave is right, maybe I should use a right hook? ;-)

Cindy

mikmik

11-27-2003, 05:54 AM

I have focused on 'fluid' design since I made my first site. I was so proud of it, until I saw it on an 800x600 res, and nothing lined up at all! Even on 1024x768, with the desktop set to 'large font', it did not scale well. There is, without a doubt, one thing that bugs me more than anything else, because it is the biggest pain in the erse BY FAR, is horizontal scrolling. And I read this over and over again, and have been aware of it since my second or third week in, and people tell me over and over again. It is not even debateable.
I would also like to state that over half of the people Iv'e worked on their computers for, have 800 x 600 res because a) they only have a 14 or 15 in monitor[2/3], or b) about 1 out of 5 people LIKE it that big even though I've showed them the difference. (It might be more like one out of four, or3/10 but I know all perceptions are biased, so I estimate conservatively).
And there is no doubt in my mind, that somewhere between 38 - 55% of people browse at 800x600 res, no question. I don't care if only 10 or 20 or 5% of the population are using 800 by 600 in 1 -2 years (and more like 3 -4) years from now, I can't afford to lose that many visitors and still be around then. It is not just a 'usability' issue, it is a sign of a lack of awareness on the designers part to people who have to deal with font they can't read, or layouts that are hard to read AND confusing because they miss navigation etc. or have to keep looking down to put their cursor on the scroll bar. Those people have a sample of 'one' in their surveys, they most likely do not care in the slightest how much they are in the minority, they will respect designers that take them into consideration.

<edit: that was uncalled for, I was out of line to my friends!>

If time is money, plan ahead. It is real easy to cut'n'paste a javascript that will choose a specific CSS for your page based on the viewers resolution. Just copy each page, an 'a' and a 'b' version, CSS 'a' has 14px set as 'standard', and CSS 'b' has 10px, in the body tag. Then everything is % from then on.
I think that the more we can put ourselves in the others shoes, the better we are, designers, humans, MVP's and MOD's! (o:
Now I hope I don't regret this tomorrow, it is 3:00 am, do you know where your children are?